If the Nationalists are serious about copying countries like Norway and
Denmark, they will face a heavy bill to equip Scotland's armed forces to
match Scandinavian levels

Not for the first time, the SNP has accused the Ministry of Defence of failing to honour what's called the "Unionist dividend" in respect of Armed Forces spending in Scotland.

Angus Robertson, the party's Westminster leader and defence spokesman, said that, according to the SNP's calculations, Scotland has been short-changed in Armed Forces and associated spending to the tune of £7.4 billion over the last 10 years.

This is apparently worked out on the basis of what the Nationalists reckon Scotland's share of the national cake should be and, as such, is a highly debateable figure. That said, the current occupants of the MoD have so far appeared singularly inept at countering even the daftest of the Nats' claims.

However, what the voters are entitled to know is precisely what the SNP plan for Scotland's defence forces – no generalities, no vagueness, no grandiose promises, just hard facts.

For instance, we hear a great deal about how much the Nats admire countries of a similar size to Scotland in Scandinavia and how much they may well model a future Scotland on those counties.

Related Articles

In such circumstances, then, let's have a look at Norway and Denmark and their defence forces. We could, in this instance, leave out Sweden as it, unlike its neighbours, is not a member of Nato, whereas an independent Scotland is now committed to joining the alliance following last October's SNP conference.

And what I think "Field Marshal" Robertson and his boss, Alex Salmond, should now be in a position to tell us is how close to the Norwegian and Danish armies, navies and air forces "their" Scotland would be.

First things first; would there be conscription in an independent Scotland? Both Norway and Denmark have, to differing degrees, the "call-up" for adult males. It is not especially onerous, certainly when compared with conscription when it existed in Britain, but it's there, nevertheless. And it's compulsory.

Then there's the hardware both countries possess. At first sight it's pretty impressive and, quite frankly, surprising in both quantity and quality.

According to one estimate the Norwegians, for instance, have around 60 F-16 "Fighting Falcon" multi-role fast jets, while the Danes have around 40 of the same type.

However, both countries are due to replace these aging planes with F-35 "Stealth" fighters, as is the UK, which has initially ordered 48. But at over £100 million each, these amazing US-built planes don't come cheap.

Would an independent Scotland have an air force; if so would it have F-35s like the Norwegians and Danes, the countries for which the Nats say they have such a high regard? And if so, how many?

Or would an independent Scotland abandon fast jets altogether?

That's what New Zealand has done and it is certainly a cheaper option, given that it dispenses with the need to buy expensive planes and there's a huge saving, too, on the tens of thousands it costs to train the pilots.

But would it fit in with the Nats' commitment to play a full role in the Nato alliance? Both Norwegian and Danish planes, for instance, played significant roles in the Nato operation against Gaddafi's Libya – Norwegian F-16s being responsible for bombing the dictator's HQ.

It's not just with fast jets that these countries, with similar populations to Scotland, have impressive defence capabilities. Norway has five almost brand-new frigates, costing over £2 billion, as well as six submarines, 12 Sea King helicopters and four C130 transport aircraft.

These are big numbers and bigger still is the bill to pay for them. Would an independent Scotland match them? Would there be conscription? Would there be fast jets? Would there be submarines? Would there be a surface fleet? How much would it all cost?

And what proportion of the country's resources would be devoted to paying for them?

There is a fond belief in Nat circles that they'd get a "share" of current UK defence resources but the MoD has already said that if and when an SNP government bans the Trident boats from the Clyde, all Royal Navy submarines would leave Scotland.

And would the rest of the UK be prepared to hand over any of its currently depleted resources in planes and ships?

The SNP says that there would be savings if Scotland no longer paid for Trident or any replacement. How much would that be and how much of that would be swallowed up by buying lots of new kit?

One of these days Messrs Salmond and Robertson should spell out the answers.